Washington - In the wake of SOPA and PIPA, there is yet another terrifying bill on the table. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short) which is currently being discussed by Congress.In Washington, Congress is discussing the best way to avert the ongoing cyberattacks and some legislators have put forward a new act which, if it passes Congress, will allow the government access to personal correspondence of any person of their choosing.Much like the Big Brother tactics in the United Kingdom recently, this bill will likely cause an outcry of condemnation and criticism, as happened with the deceased SOPA and PIPA bills.The title of this controversial act is H.R. 3523 and it has been dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short). It is feared that CISPA is far worse than SOPA and PIPA in its possible effects on the Internet.While this paper has been created under the guise of being a necessary weapon in the U.S. war against cyberattacks, the wording of the paper is vague and broad. It is thought that the act could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and would allow the monitoring and censorship of any user and also stop online communications which they deem disruptive to the government or to private parties.Critics say that CISPA would give any federal entity that claims it is threatened by online interactions the ability to take action against the "perpetrator". Unlike the SOPA and PIPA acts which were eventually discarded after a successful online campaign, widespread recognition of what the latest proposed law will do has yet to surface to the same degree.Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology tells RT:“We have a number of concerns with something like this bill that creates sort of a vast hole in the privacy law to allow government to receive these kinds of information.”She states that the bill, as it stands, allows the U.S. government to involve itself in any online correspondence if it believes there is reason to suspect cyber crime.As with other recent attempts at Internet censorship that have been discussed in Congress, the wording within the CISPA allows the government to interpret the law so broadly, that any online communication or interaction could then be suspect, and monitored without the knowledge of the parties concerned.The CDT in a press release last month warned that CISPA allows Internet Service Providers to “funnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls. The bill does not specify which agencies ISPs could disclose customer data to, but the structure and incentives in the bill raise a very real possibility that the National Security Agency or the DOD’s Cybercommand would be the primary recipient.”CISPA has also been condemned by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online advocacy group. They say that “It effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity'’ exemption to all existing laws. There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes'.”According to both CDT and EFF, this means some of the largest corporations in the country, including online service providers like Google, Twitter, Facebook or AT&T could, if pressured, copy confidential information from a user and send this information to the Pentagon, as long as the government believes there is a reason to suspect wrongdoing.According to the authors of CISPA, this bill has been made “To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities.” They also state: “and for other purposes,” which is broad and rather undefined.In the video Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology tells RT: “Cyber security, when done right and done narrowly, could benefit everyone. But it needs to be done in an incremental way with a narrow approach, and the heavy hand that lawmakers are taking with these current bills . . . it brings real serious concerns.”At today's date CISPA has the support of over 100 representatives in the House, who favor the cybersecurity legislation, but do not take into account what it can do to the everyday Internet user.While there are no major protests as yet, as happened with SOPA and PIPA, Burman feels it will only be a matter of time before concerned Americans demand to have their say in the matter.“One of the lessons we learned in the reaction to SOPA and PIPA is that when Congress tries to legislate on things that are going to affect Internet users’ experience, the Internet users are going to pay attention,” says Burman. She adds that H.R. 3523 “Definitely could affect in a very serious way the Internet experience.”She does add that “People are starting to notice.”However, given the speed that this latest bill could be snuck through in Congress, anyone concerned over the future of the free Internet should be on the look out.

Hilarious. While the entire world was watching SOPA, which seems hopelessly stalled in the committees of The Main Adversary's congress, all the little countries were enacting identical legislation.

In Canada, Bill C-11 does everything SOPA does and more (it would be a crime to backup your hard drive [assuming your hard drive contains an iTunes song, even if you legally purchased it]) and yet, weirdly, most Canadians have never heard of it, even though it's sailing through to passage in the Commons. There are no demonstrations in the gilded cities of Europe, no online petitions attracting millions of outraged netizens, no furious denouncements in the world's press, no threads started by any of the 1,774 Canadians on Conquer Club. Everyone is so concerned with what's happening in a foreign capital 2,000 km away they can't be bothered with what's happening 20 km from their front door.

This is how The Main Adversary operates. It redefines the cosmos so that it sits as the great galactic center with little planets (countries) spinning aimlessly around it, resigned to the futility of their own existence.

saxitoxin wrote:Hilarious. While the entire world was watching SOPA, which seems hopelessly stalled in the committees of The Main Adversary's congress, all the little countries were enacting identical legislation.

In Canada, Bill C-11 does everything SOPA does and more (it would be a crime to backup your hard drive [assuming your hard drive contains an iTunes song, even if you legally purchased it]) and yet, weirdly, most Canadians have never heard of it, even though it's sailing through to passage in the Commons. There are no demonstrations in the gilded cities of Europe, no online petitions attracting millions of outraged netizens, no furious denouncements in the world's press, no threads started by any of the 1,774 Canadians on Conquer Club. Everyone is so concerned with what's happening in a foreign capital 2,000 km away they can't be bothered with what's happening 20 km from their front door.

This is how The Main Adversary operates. It redefines the cosmos so that it sits as the great galactic center with little planets (countries) spinning aimlessly around it, resigned to the futility of their own existence.

I don't know about Canadians nor why they're not concerned about their rights, but I have been actively resisting the ACTA agreement in Finland. For what it's worth, I also posted about it here to spread awareness about it.

When it comes to "being concerned with what's happening in a foreign capital 2000 km away", I think I'm pretty well justified in being interested in US legislation, since it seems they can enforce it in whatever country they choose, even if said country doesn't have similar laws, and ship offending citizens to be judged and imprisoned in the US.

Furthermore, even if I could be confident that my government wouldn't jump to lick USA:s arse the same way britain did, the US is still a major superpower and any legislation enacted there is going to have a ripple effect globally.

saxitoxin wrote:Hilarious. While the entire world was watching SOPA, which seems hopelessly stalled in the committees of The Main Adversary's congress, all the little countries were enacting identical legislation.

In Canada, Bill C-11 does everything SOPA does and more (it would be a crime to backup your hard drive [assuming your hard drive contains an iTunes song, even if you legally purchased it]) and yet, weirdly, most Canadians have never heard of it, even though it's sailing through to passage in the Commons. There are no demonstrations in the gilded cities of Europe, no online petitions attracting millions of outraged netizens, no furious denouncements in the world's press, no threads started by any of the 1,774 Canadians on Conquer Club. Everyone is so concerned with what's happening in a foreign capital 2,000 km away they can't be bothered with what's happening 20 km from their front door.

This is how The Main Adversary operates. It redefines the cosmos so that it sits as the great galactic center with little planets (countries) spinning aimlessly around it, resigned to the futility of their own existence.

I don't know about Canadians nor why they're not concerned about their rights, but I have been actively resisting the ACTA agreement in Finland. For what it's worth, I also posted about it here to spread awareness about it.

When it comes to "being concerned with what's happening in a foreign capital 2000 km away", I think I'm pretty well justified in being interested in US legislation, since it seems they can enforce it in whatever country they choose, even if said country doesn't have similar laws, and ship offending citizens to be judged and imprisoned in the US.

Furthermore, even if I could be confident that my government wouldn't jump to lick USA:s arse the same way britain did, the US is still a major superpower and any legislation enacted there is going to have a ripple effect globally.

You are right about that.It is amazing that congress thinks this will fly. I just hope people will stand up against it.

saxitoxin wrote:Hilarious. While the entire world was watching SOPA, which seems hopelessly stalled in the committees of The Main Adversary's congress, all the little countries were enacting identical legislation.

In Canada, Bill C-11 does everything SOPA does and more (it would be a crime to backup your hard drive [assuming your hard drive contains an iTunes song, even if you legally purchased it]) and yet, weirdly, most Canadians have never heard of it, even though it's sailing through to passage in the Commons. There are no demonstrations in the gilded cities of Europe, no online petitions attracting millions of outraged netizens, no furious denouncements in the world's press, no threads started by any of the 1,774 Canadians on Conquer Club. Everyone is so concerned with what's happening in a foreign capital 2,000 km away they can't be bothered with what's happening 20 km from their front door.

This is how The Main Adversary operates. It redefines the cosmos so that it sits as the great galactic center with little planets (countries) spinning aimlessly around it, resigned to the futility of their own existence.

I don't know about Canadians nor why they're not concerned about their rights, but I have been actively resisting the ACTA agreement in Finland. For what it's worth, I also posted about it here to spread awareness about it.

When it comes to "being concerned with what's happening in a foreign capital 2000 km away", I think I'm pretty well justified in being interested in US legislation, since it seems they can enforce it in whatever country they choose, even if said country doesn't have similar laws, and ship offending citizens to be judged and imprisoned in the US.

Furthermore, even if I could be confident that my government wouldn't jump to lick USA:s arse the same way britain did, the US is still a major superpower and any legislation enacted there is going to have a ripple effect globally.

As the fight in the Senate begins, here is everything you need to know about CISPA:

CISPA’s broad language will likely give the government access to anyone’s personal information with few privacy protections: CISPA allows the government access to any “information pertaining directly to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity.” There is little indication of what this information could include, and what it means to be ‘pertinent’ to cyber security. Without boundaries, any internet user’s personal, private information would likely be fair game for the government.

It supersedes all other provisions of the law protecting privacy: As the bill is currently written, CISPA would apply “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” In other words, privacy restrictions currently in place would not apply to CISPA. As a result, companies could disclose more personal information about users than necessary. Ars Technica writes, “if a company decides that your private emails, your browsing history, your health care records, or any other information would be helpful in dealing with a ‘cyber threat,’ the company can ignore laws that would otherwise limit its disclosure.”

The bill completely exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act: Citizens and journalists have access to most things the government does via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a key tool for increasing transparency. However, CISPA completely exempts itself from FOIA requests. The Sunlight Foundation blasted CISPA for “entirely” dismissing FOIA’s “fundamental safeguard for public oversight of government’s activities.”

CISPA gives companies blanket immunity from future lawsuits: One of the most egregious aspects of CISPA is that it gives blanket legal immunity to any company that shares its customers’ private information. In other words, if Microsoft were to share your browsing history with the government despite your posing no security threat, you would be barred from filing a lawsuit against them. Without any legal recourse for citizens to take against corporate bad behavior, companies will be far more inclined to share private information.

Recent revisions don’t go nearly far enough: In an attempt to specify how the government can use the information they collect, the House passed an amendment saying the data can only be used for: “1) cybersecurity; 2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; 3) protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; 4) protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and 5) protection of the national security of the United States.” This new version still “suffers from most of the same problems that plagued the original version,” writes Timothy Lee. Because terms like “cybersecurity” are so vague, the bill’s language could encompass almost anything.

Citizens have to trust that companies like Facebook won’t share your personal information: CISPA does not force companies share private user information with the government. That being said, Ars Technica makes the point that “the government has a variety of carrots and sticks it can use to induce private firms to share information it wants.” For instance, many companies receive federal contracts or subsidies and would be hesitant to deny any request from the government that might jeopardize future business. Companies may not be legally required to turn over information, but they “may not be in a position to say no.”

Companies can already inform the government and each other about incoming cybersecurity threats: While proponents of CISPA claim it’s needed to allow agencies and companies to share information about incoming cybersecurity threats, opponents of the bill point out that “network administrators and security researchers at private firms have shared threat information with one another for decades.”

The internet is fighting back: The same online activists who fought hard against SOPA are now engaged in the battle over CISPA. Over 770,000 people have signed a petition by the online organizing group Avaaz that asks Congress to defeat the bill. Reddit, the news-sharing internet community that helped lead the fight against SOPA, is organizing again around CISPA.

Most Republicans support CISPA, while most Democrats oppose it: The House passed CISPA on April 26 on a mostly-party-line vote, 248-168. Among congressmen that voted, 88 percent of Republicans supported the bill while 77 percent of Democrats opposed it.

President Obama threatened to veto it: Recognizing the threat to civil liberties that CISPA poses, President Obama announced this week that he “strongly opposes” the bill and has threatened to veto if it comes to his desk. Obama singled out the provisions that allow for blanket legal immunity and do not enough to safeguard citizens’ private information.

Given that the (1)* bill exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act, (2)* prevents customers from taking legal action against companies which may wrongfully violate their privacy contract with you, (3) that I highly value transparency of government actions, and that (4) CISPA apparently lends itself to discretionary action due to its ambiguous guidelines (e.g. "cybersecurity or the protection of U.S. national security"), then I view CISPA as unacceptable.

Since CISPA diminishes the people's ability to hold the government and corporations accountable for wrongdoing or abuse, then this act is not just. How can the government know what's best for the people if the government makes its actions in the name of security less visible? Its justifications are the only justifications we can accept due to the lack of transparency. The Act can effectively block any feedback from the people (through the courts).

CISPA seems to only promote security for the state at the expense of the people. How would this act make US citizens any safer?

Given that the (1)* bill exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act, (2)* prevents customers from taking legal action against companies which may wrongfully violate their privacy contract with you, (3) that I highly value transparency of government actions, and that (4) CISPA apparently lends itself to discretionary action due to its ambiguous guidelines (e.g. "cybersecurity or the protection of U.S. national security"), then I view CISPA as unacceptable.

Since CISPA diminishes the people's ability to hold the government and corporations accountable for wrongdoing or abuse, then this act is not just. How can the government know what's best for the people if the government makes its actions in the name of security less visible? Its justifications are the only justifications we can accept due to the lack of transparency. The Act can effectively block any feedback from the people (through the courts).

CISPA seems to only promote security for the state at the expense of the people. How would this act make US citizens any safer?

Obviously it wouldn't make anyone safer. That isn't it's purpose. It's purpose is to try to control the internet, because it threatens the power of those who have it, and those who have it want to keep it.

Given that the (1)* bill exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act, (2)* prevents customers from taking legal action against companies which may wrongfully violate their privacy contract with you, (3) that I highly value transparency of government actions, and that (4) CISPA apparently lends itself to discretionary action due to its ambiguous guidelines (e.g. "cybersecurity or the protection of U.S. national security"), then I view CISPA as unacceptable.

Since CISPA diminishes the people's ability to hold the government and corporations accountable for wrongdoing or abuse, then this act is not just. How can the government know what's best for the people if the government makes its actions in the name of security less visible? Its justifications are the only justifications we can accept due to the lack of transparency. The Act can effectively block any feedback from the people (through the courts).

CISPA seems to only promote security for the state at the expense of the people. How would this act make US citizens any safer?

Obviously it wouldn't make anyone safer. That isn't it's purpose. It's purpose is to try to control the internet, because it threatens the power of those who have it, and those who have it want to keep it.

To play the devil's advocate, this act would enable the government to more effectively enforce copyright laws. People, whose works are stolen (or in reality, duplicated) from cyber piracy, would be operating in an area of decreased security; therefore, in order to make the environment of these producers safer, the government must implement this act.

In this sense, how does CISPA fail to make people safer? It promotes a safer environment of production and exchange!

Given that the (1)* bill exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act, (2)* prevents customers from taking legal action against companies which may wrongfully violate their privacy contract with you, (3) that I highly value transparency of government actions, and that (4) CISPA apparently lends itself to discretionary action due to its ambiguous guidelines (e.g. "cybersecurity or the protection of U.S. national security"), then I view CISPA as unacceptable.

Since CISPA diminishes the people's ability to hold the government and corporations accountable for wrongdoing or abuse, then this act is not just. How can the government know what's best for the people if the government makes its actions in the name of security less visible? Its justifications are the only justifications we can accept due to the lack of transparency. The Act can effectively block any feedback from the people (through the courts).

CISPA seems to only promote security for the state at the expense of the people. How would this act make US citizens any safer?

Obviously it wouldn't make anyone safer. That isn't it's purpose. It's purpose is to try to control the internet, because it threatens the power of those who have it, and those who have it want to keep it.

To play the devil's advocate, this act would enable the government to more effectively enforce copyright laws. People, whose works are stolen (or in reality, duplicated) from cyber piracy, would be operating in an area of decreased security; therefore, in order to make the environment of these producers safer, the government must implement this act.

In this sense, how does CISPA fail to make people safer? It promotes a safer environment of production and exchange!

Ok first of all, copyright laws are already enforced as strictly as is necessary. In fact most copyright laws are way out of control and only benefit huge corporations - how exactly does it benefit the original artist that some corporation gets to have copyrights to thon's work for 70 years after thon's death?

Secondly, there's absolutely no evidence that internet or even piracy in general has caused any losses of profit to copyright holders. There are plenty of independent artists who use the internet as a venue for their works and are able to maintain a profitable business model. And that brings me to my third point...

In the last decade or so, there's been a huge paradigm shift in the way we see entertainment. Earlier, entertainment was produced from a strictly "top-down" model - huge media corporations had ultimate control over what people would consume, and if you didn't like it, tough - there wasn't any alternatives. Internet has changed all that - now anyone can create entertainment and publish it for the whole world to see, entertainment is no longer a one-way street from the producer to the consumers - it's more of a collaborative dialogue between people. And that's of course unacceptable to the media giants, they're going to try everything they can to go back to the old model where they had total control over consumers. Fortunately more and more people see through their bullshit, and claiming back art and entertainment to who it should have belonged all along.

All these attempts to bring stricter copyright enforcement - sopa, cispa, acta etc. - are just attempts to clamp down on entertainment and art and discourage free sharing of ideas. They're not for the "benefit of artists" except superficially - and even if they did benefit artists, that still wouldn't justify restricting the freedom of expression of everyone else.